FOIA Sunlight And More Trayvon Martin Police Records

About these ads
This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, M-DSPD, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to FOIA Sunlight And More Trayvon Martin Police Records

  1. John VI says:

    I Dont know if this affects you or not but pg 113 of the document is not properly redacted and shows trayvon martins name clearly ( and redacted again further down )
    Just a quick caution.

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      No caution needed for CTH, is there? The redactions were done by the document source. So if they incompetently redacted, does that become our liability somehow? (serious question….I wouldn’t know)

      Like

  2. pet says:

    Perfect rebuttal witness to any “profiling” bs they try to stick on GZ at trial.

    “TM was observed in an unauthorized area of the school hiding and acting suspicously…”

    Like

  3. It’s the greatest irony of all time. “George just assumed he was suspicious, how he was ‘concerned of robberies’ and that he was on drugs”. He was on drugs, he has a history of robbing and he was seen as suspicious, before, by authorities who recognized he committed a crime.

    You simply cannot make this stuff up. You are now seeing why Trayvon had to be a 12 year old. This was misdirection from a family, and a lawyer, who, had it not been for George’s gun, would, at best, be defending a boy who would have a record of assault and, at worst, a record of robbery, drug dealing, illegal fire arm possession and assault.

    Liability, and facts, are a mofo. In a world where criminals and exploiters (lawyers and the media) chase a gigantic dollar bill on a string, while simultaneously misleading the public, data trumps all.

    Like

  4. janc1955 says:

    Can someone point me to what’s new here? I’m not seeing it. Thanks!

    Like

  5. To me it looked like a loop of the same thing (the further you get into the document). Curious to see what we are missing. Ty.

    Like

    • kathyca says:

      I don’t know if it’s new info, but what I notice was one doc that described the jewelry situation as criminal mischief under $200, even though clearly no one bothered to value the jewelry. Given the number of items alone, much less some of the descriptions, it would have to have been valued at more than $200. So they called it that and left $0.00 values to avoid having to deal with the issue.

      The second thing I noticed was that, while the screwdriver is identified as a “burglary tool” in one report, what I believe is the official/final report identifies it as one of the items “found.” It is assigned a value of $0.00 just like the jewelry. The form asks that weapons/tools be identified, and the screwdriver does not appear in that category.

      Whether this is brand spankin’ new info or not, it’s as plain as the nose on yer face.

      Like

  6. jello333 says:

    Just commenting so I’ll get notifications in case something is added to this, since like others, I think I’ve seen this before. But that’s fine…. just because it’s not “new” to some of us, doesn’t mean there aren’t others seeing this for the first time.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s